Interview guidelines
Introduction
As from 2004 up to ten countries from Central and Eastern Europe are likely to join the European Union (EU). That means the EU needs to think about the issue of competences and working methods, but also about how the Union can be made more democratic and transparent. These are just some of the issues on the agenda of the Convention on the Future of Europe chaired by the former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. With the following questions on key issues of the Future of Europe debate we would like to hear your opinion on how the EU should evolve over the years ahead and what needs to be improved.
Section One: Democratisation and Institutions
The Union derives its legitimacy from both the citizens and the member states. The EU institutions should reflect this double legitimacy in a democratic and transparent manner. This would help to simplify (political) decision-making procedures and give citizens a better understanding of what the EU is doing.
1.1. To which extent do you feel represented by the Institutions mentioned below? (lowest=1; highest=5; don’t know, don’t care=0)
The European Parliament [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
The Council (of Ministers) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
The Commission [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
The European Council [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
The European Court of Justice [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
The European Central Bank [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
The European Parliament
1.2. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliament (EP) are the two law-making bodies. However, currently the EP has less weight on a number of legislative issues and adopts only a part of the EU budget. Should the EP have equal decision rights with the Council on all matters?
The Council (of Ministers)
1.3. Currently the Presidency of the Council rotates among the member states (each member state holds it for 6 months). The Presidency chairs all meetings of the Council and its subordinated groups. In total more than 200 people are involved in chairing meetings. For the future the following options are discussed:
* maintaining of the present situation
* maintaining of the rotation system: Presently discussed is a period of 1 ˝ years or more among a group of countries sharing the presidency.
* Council meetings should have an elected chair (e. g. foreign affairs council, environmental affairs council, etc.) other council groups (such as COREPER and working groups) should be chaired by a commission representative, who in any case has no right to vote.
Which one would you prefer?
1.4. Currently the Council has both legislative functions (= making laws) and executive ones (= implementing policies). Should the Council give up this executive functions and be solely a legislative body (a senate) representing the member states?
1.5. Currently the meetings of the Council are not public and its minutes are secret. Should the Council meetings become public, when it meets as a legislative body and the minutes made available, as it is for the European Parliament?
1.6. Unanimity (all countries must agree) is required under certain issues in order to pass a law or to decide one a concrete measure (e.g. most of the cases under the Common Foreign and Security Policy). In a Union of 25 it will become more difficult to reach an agreement. Should nevertheless the unanimity rule be maintained?
*Yes, as it is today
*Yes, for a reduced number of cases
*No, it should be abolished
European Commission
The European Commission is the Union`s (main) executive body. Currently each member state has one Commissioner. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom have two.
1.7. Should the Commission become the EU´s exclusive executive body?
1.8.
The question of the
composition of the Commission has arisen in the light of enlargement. The
problem is to determine what is the optimum number of Commissioners needed
to guarantee the legitimacy, collective responsibility and efficiency of an
institution whose purpose is to represent the “European”-interest and whose
Members should be completely independent.
How many members should the Commission in an enlarged Union
have?
*One per country
*Less than one per country, according to a rotation principle based on equality
*Less than one per country, not taking into account their nationality
*One per country with a junior-/senior-Commissioner model
1.9. How should the President of the Commission be chosen?
*Elected by the European Parliament
*Appointed by the European Council
*Elected by a special body composed by Members of the European Parliament and National Parliaments
*Directly elected by the citizens
1.10. How should the individual Commissioners be chosen?
*Appointed by the President of the Commission and approved by the EP
*Appointed by the Council
The European Council
1.11. The European Council is composed by the EU-Heads of State or Government, their foreign affairs ministers and the President of the Commission. It meets at least twice a year and deliberates on broad policy guidelines.
Should it become the collective Head of the European Union holding general discussions on the overall development of the integration process, but refraining from any interference in the “daily business” of the Union and the legislative and budgetary procedures?
Section Two: Division of Competences
Citizens often hold expectations of the EU that are not always fulfilled. And vice versa they sometimes have the impression that the Union takes on too much in areas where its involvement is not always essential. Therefore it is important to clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competence between the Union and the Member States in the light of the new challenges for the Union.
2.1. Economic and social cohesion means balanced and sustainable development, reducing structural disparities between regions and countries and promoting equal opportunities for all individuals. In practical terms it is achieved by means of a variety of financing operations, principally through the Structural Funds.
Should the EU have a policy aiming at economic and social cohesion between the member states?
2.2. Should the EU have the competence for the harmonization of taxation policies (direct taxes, indirect taxes, etc.)?
2.3. Should an “EU-tax” replace national contributions to the EU-budget?
2.4. The basic goals of the common agricultural policy are to promote improved productivity in the sector and ensure a stable food supply. Today`s challenge lies in a policy which should balance the consumer interest in reasonable prices with the farming interests in maintaining and improving incomes. However, since the early 70th the system is characterized by overproduction on the one hand and too low incomes for farmers on the other hand.
Should agricultural policy remain an exclusive European competence and how should this policy be developed (maintaining the present system, shifting to more direct payment for farmers, etc.)?
Role of the EU
The EU has an increasing influence in different policy areas. Presently there is a discussion how strong this influence should be in the following policy areas (please feel free for comments).
(very strong=1; no role=5; don’t know, don’t care=0)
2.5. Justice and Home Affairs (visa, asylum, immigration policy, Europol, ..)?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
follow-up question: Who should conduct this policy? *Council *Commission
2.6. Economic policy?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
follow-up question: Who should conduct this policy? *Council *Commission
2.7. Employment policy?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
follow-up question: Who should conduct this policy? *Council *Commission
2.8. Social policy
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
follow-up question: Who should conduct this policy? *Council *Commission
2.9. Environmental policy?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [0]
follow-up question: Who should conduct this policy? *Council *Commission
Foreign and defence policy
Foreign policy is the least developed area of European integration. Currently the Union has the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Both instruments are intergovernmental. In the CFSP (established more than 10 years ago) the High Representative, held by the Secretary-General of the Council, enables the Union to present itself more visibly and consistently on the international stage by giving it a single face and voice. The European Council is the ultimate authority and defines the principles and general guidelines of the CFSP. All decisions are made by the Council only. The Commission is associated with the CFSP work, where it has, along with the Member States, a right of policy initiative. Presently a common planning and analysis unit, established between the Council and the Commission assists the policy. The Commission`s external presentation of the Union depends on the policy areas.
A large majority of citizens demand a strong and coherent policy in the area of foreign affairs and defence. Yet the EU has failed to respond rapidly and efficiently in major international crisis (Kosovo, etc.). There is a common agreement that a reform is therefore urgently needed.
2.10. Who should conduct the EU´s foreign policy?
*Council *Commission *both
2.11. Who should be the EU´s “Foreign Minister”?
*Member/Vice-President of the Commission *Member/Secretary General of the Council
2.12. Should the EP be involved in defining the EU´s foreign policy priorities?
2.13. Who should conduct the EU´s defence policy?
*Council *Commission *both
2.14. Does the EU need a “Defence Minister”?
if yes – follow-up question: Who should it be?
*Representative from the Council *Representative from the Commission
2.15. Should the EP be involved in defining the EU´s defence policy priorities?
2.16. Are you in favour of a “European Army”?
Handling of Competence Issues
2.17. Presently disputes regarding the distribution of competences between the EU and the member states (e.g. subsidiarity) are handled by the European Court of Justice. Should this situation remain?
if no – follow-up question: How should a new body dealing with competence matters look like? Which representatives should it include?
Section Three: Treaties and Shape of the Union
The question of the clarity of the treaties is often raised because of the nature of the Community legal structure, which is the result of a succession of treaties. Each new treaty makes additions to its predecessors but in doing so also changes them. Therefore it has become very complicate for practitioners to work with the different EU-Treaties. Simplification of the Treaties could remedy this problem and help to render the Union more understandable for its citizens. Furthermore, one of the issues to be discussed by the Convention is whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the treaties.
The EU has a three pillar-structure and within the pillars are different ways to decide matters. The first pillar (Community dimension) comes under the “community method” that means working together of the three institutions Council, EP and Commission and qualified majority voting in the Council. The second (common foreign and security policy) and third (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) pillars are under the “intergovernmental method” that means that the Council acts unanimously.
3.1. In 2000 the EU has adopted a Charter of Fundamental Rights. Should this document become legal binding?
3.2. Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights become the preamble to a future “European Constitution”?
3.3. The EU is currently based on different Treaties (Euratom, EC, EU,…). Should this treaties be merged into one document?
if yes - Should the three pillar-structure maintain or should all matters be decided according to the Community method?
if yes -> Should the constitutional provisions of the Treaties become a “European Constitution” (and the rest put in to an “operational treaty”)
3.4. The EU plans to include 10 new member states by 2004 and 2 more by 2007. Should the enlargement process continue beyond that, until all European countries which wish to do so have joined?
if yes -> Should also Russia be allowed to join the EU?
if yes -> Should also Turkey be allowed to join the EU?
Section Four: Changes to the Treaties and Ratification Procedures
Currently changes to the EU-treaties can only be adopted by an inter-governmental conference and must be ratified by all EU member states.
In a Europe of 25 this process becomes more and more difficult and therefore needs a reform.
4.1. Should the new “European constitution” enter into force, when ratified by
- all member states?
- 2/3 of the member states?
- more than the half of the member states?
if not answer “all member states” -> If the “European constitution” is ratified only by a majority of states, those states not having ratified the treaty should
- nevertheless apply the treaty.
- have the opportunity to leave the Union.
- be offered a special status.
4.2. Should a future “European constitution” be ratified by a Europe-wide referendum?
4.3. Should further changes to the future “European constitution” be adopted through the “convention method”?
